The Responsibility to Protect: Integrating Gender Perspectives into Policies and Practices

in Global Responsibility to Protect
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Despite the fact that the development of the R2P principle has occurred in parallel to significant developments in the field of gender on the international scene, gender remains a neglected topic in the central documents and debates related to the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). There is therefore a need to consider how gender may be integrated into R2P policies and practices. This article suggests that this discussion may be structured around two gender perspectives, which are guided by the questions of ‘where are the women?’ and ‘how does gender work?’ respectively. The first gender perspective involves identifying women’s experiences in connection with mass atrocities and taking into account their role as agents in the commissioning, as well as the prevention of, and protection against, such atrocities. The second gender perspective involves investigating what work gender is doing in the context of mass atrocities. Here, the focus is specifically on sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) and how this is based on, and serves to maintain or reinforce, certain notions of femininity and masculinity. Based on these two gender perspectives, the article presents a series of recommendations for the development of R2P policies and practices.

The Responsibility to Protect: Integrating Gender Perspectives into Policies and Practices

in Global Responsibility to Protect

Sections

References

3

ICISSThe Responsibility to Protect p. xi.

4

A/RES/60/1 24 October 2005.

5

S/RES/1674 28 April 2006.

8

S/RES/1325 31 October 2000.

9

By May 200916 national action plans had been adopted in addition to resolutions and strategies by several regional organisations see Torunn L. Tryggestad ‘Trick or Treat? The UN and Implementation of Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women Peace and Security’ Global Governance 15/4 (2009) p. 556 n. 53.

10

Ibid. p. 552.

11

S/RES/1820 19 June 2008.

14

S/RES/1888 30 September 2009.

16

Bond and Sherret‘A Sight for Sore Eyes’ p. 24 22-25.

18

A/RES/60/1 24 October 2005para. 116.

30

Hilary Charlesworth‘Feminist Reflections on the Responsibility to Protect’Global Responsibility to Protect2/2 (2010) pp. 232-249; Shelina Ali ‘Gender Mainistreaming in Canadian Human Security Policy: The Limitations of Bureaucratic and Security Discourses’ Innovations: A journal of Politics 8 (2008-2009) pp. 34-58; Axworthy and Rock ‘R2P: A New and Unfinished Agenda’; Bellamy Responsibility to protect; Bond and Sherret ‘A Sight for Sore Eyes’.

32

Axworthy and Rock‘R2P: A New and Unfinished Agenda’ p. 62.

35

 See for example Cynthia EnloeThe Curious Feminist: Searching for Women in a New Age of Empire (Berkeley: University of California Press2004).

37

Sandra WhitworthMen Militarism and UN Peacekeeping. A Gendered Analysis (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers2004); Johanna Valenius ‘A Few Kind Women: Gender Essentialism and Nordic Peacekeeping Operations’ International Peacekeeping 14/4 (2007) pp. 510-523; Dyan Mazurana Angela Raven-Roberts and Jane Parpart (eds.) Gender Conflict and Peacekeeping (Boulder Colo: Rwoman and Littlefield 2005).

39

V. Spike Peterson‘Feminist Theories Within, Invisible To, and Beyond IR’Brown Journal of World AffairsX/2 (2004) p. 40.

44

Carol Cohn‘Mainstreaming Gender in UN Security Policy: A Path to Political Transformation?’Boston Consortium on Gender Security and Human Rights Working Paper 204 (2003-2004) p. 13.

45

Axworthy and Rock‘R2P: A New and Unfinished Agenda’ p. 62.

46

Jean Bethke ElshtainWomen and War (New York: Basic Books1987) p. xi.

47

Axworthy and Rock‘R2P: A New and Unfinished Agenda’ p. 62.

48

A/64/864 14 July 2010para. 3.

53

Bond and Sherret‘A Sight for Sore Eyes’ p. 36.

54

Carol Cohn‘Mainstreaming Gender in UN Security Policy’ p. 13.

55

Hilary Charlesworth‘Feminist Reflections’ pp. 242-243.

57

Carol Cohn‘Mainstreaming Gender in UN Security Policy’ p. 18.

58

Ali‘Gender Mainistreaming’ p. 46.

59

Hilary Charlesworth‘Feminist Reflections’ pp 242-243.

60

E/1997/L.30 14 July 1997.

63

Miranda Alison‘Wartime sexual violence: women’s human rights and questions of masculinity’Review of International Studies33/1 (2007) p. 75; Ali ‘Gender Mainistreaming’ p. 40.

64

Inger Skjelsbæk‘Sexual Violence and War: Mapping out a Complex Relationship’European Journal ofInternational Relations 7/2 (2001) pp. 214-215.

65

Allison‘Wartime sexual violence’ p. 80; Skjelsbæk ‘Sexual Violence and War’ p. 216.

69

Zarkov:‘The Body of the Other Man’ pp. 73-80. For more on male victims of SGBV see John Tosh ‘Hegemonic Masculinity and the History of Gender’ in Stefan Dudink Karen Hagemann and John Tosh (eds.) Masculinities in Politics and War: Gendering Modern History (Manchester: Manchester University Press 2004); Ronit Lentin (ed.) Gender and Catastrophe (London and New York: Zed Books 1997); Susie Jacobs Ruth Jacobson and Jennifer Marchbank States of Conflict: Gender Violence and Resistance (London and New York: Zed Books 2000); Moser and Clark (eds.) Victims Perpetrators or Actors?

74

Scheffer (2008)‘Atrocity Crimes Framing the Responsibility to Protect’ pp. 124-125.

76

S/RES/1820 19 June 2008paras. 3-10.

82

S/RES/1820 19 June 2008para. 3.

83

S/RES/1888 30 September 2009.

87

Axworthy and Rock‘R2P: A New and Unfinished Agenda’ p. 62.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 31 31 10
Full Text Views 108 108 55
PDF Downloads 9 9 6
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0